Should prisons be built that are crime related?

1. 60

   nightwork4posted 13 years ago

   Should prisons be built that are crime related?
   
   what I mean is that should prisons be built so that one is for thieves, another for killers, another for sex offenders etc.

   replyreport
2. 84

   rachellrobinsonposted 13 years ago

   I read a story last year I think on Yahoo News where they talked about the possibility of making colonies for sex offenders, since it was too costly to lock them up, and it's not safe to release them on the general public.
   I don't believe necessarily in separating inmates based on the crime they've committed though.

   replyreport
3. 62

   Lisa HWposted 13 years ago

   I'm not sure it would be necessary (or realistic) to think prisons could be quite so broken down by crimes, but I do think white-collar criminals should be housed separately from people who have committed violent, or even "physically intrusive" crimes (like breaking into homes or cars); because, even though white-collar crime has its victims, it is a very different kind of crime than some other kinds.
   
   I think there are more appropriate punishments for white-collar criminals than generally exist now.  Letting them work and making them pay back money makes more sense than throwing them in with violent people or treating them as if they are.  Taking away things they've gotten through illegal means would be one thing.  So would requiring them to sell any property/belongings they have in order to repay what they've stolen.  Letting them have nothing but what any individual needs to live (and an ankle bracelet) could be done by letting them in low-income housing  (which would be punishment enough for a lot of people guilty of white-collar crime).
   
   If they could write books, be consultants, or give lectures (especially if their crime was a high-profile one) they should be allowed to (required to) - with all income from such things going to their victims.  If it takes the rest of their life, so be it.  If they paid off what they owed early they could still live under this kind of restrictions for x amount of time, maybe with their money going into some fund for one thing or another.  The "bar" for what constitutes "living in hell" is generally different from what "living in hell" is for people capable of being violent, intrusive, or otherwise victimizing people in "physical" ways.
   
   Of course, as long as so many people seem to think money is ore important than people and life, we'll be having murderers, child molesters, and rapists who get out of prison, and walk the streets, in fifteen years (or three years); and white-collar criminals sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Daffy Duckposted 13 years ago

   No.  You take your chances when you break the law.
   
   There are some that are for sex offenders, but very few.

   replyreport
5. 0

   fordieposted 13 years ago

   Is this the sort of set-up you're looking for:
   
   http://www.china-underground.com/magazi … inese-hell

   replyreport
6. 60

   CaravanHolidaysposted 13 years ago

   Criminals tend to learn from each other in prisons, and I'm not sure what effect this would have on a 'thieves only' prison for instance - would it breed a new generation of master burglars?

   replyreport
7. 60

   reignmaker1911posted 13 years ago

   Actually, the current system was originally designed that way. Maximum security, was for murderers and predators. Medium security for crimes deemed less serious and with a shorter punishment length, (burglary,robbery etc). Minimum security for the most petty offenses such as drug related offenses, shoplifting and so on. The idea of segregating inmates even further based on their specific offense would not be financially feasible for any state. There would have to be literally 100's of prisons built in every state and each would only house approximately 20-50 prisoners.

   replyreport